Petition No. 39 of 1991 with Company Petitions No. 43 of 1991 v. MANEKLAL IND. LTD & Ors.

the parties. As the petitions are of the year 1989, we hereby direct the Registry to place all these Company Petitions before the COMP/17/1991 JUDGMENT learned Company Judge on 17th March, 2006. The learned Company Judge shall proceed in accordance with the procedure provided in Rule-96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The appeals to the extent indicated above are allowed. No orders as to costs.”

It appears from the record that, all these Company Petitions were placed before the learned Single Judge, i.e., Company Court on 20th July 2006. Thereafter, the following order came to be passed; “It appears that as per the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: R.S. Garg & Bankim N. Mehta, J.J.] in O.J. Appeal No. 35/02, the matters are placed before this Court. It also appears that as per the order of Division Bench, more particularly at para 17, the Court directed the admission of all the COMP/17/1991 JUDGMENT Company Petitions and further directed that the hearing be advertised and the matters may be heard by the learned Single Judge after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. There is no record placed by the office as to whether any advertisement was given pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of admission of the Company Petitions and fixing the hearing. Hence, office to place the report if the advertisement has already been published. If not published, the necessary advertisement as per the order of the Division Bench be issued for fixing the hearing on 24th August,

2006.”

Thereafter, all these petitions and applications were placed before this Court and they were called out on 15th September 2006 twice, COMP/17/1991 JUDGMENT however none of the advocates appearing on behalf of petitioning creditors remained present. Shri Manish Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Company had submitted that the respondent Company is ready and willing to pay 25% of the principal amount due and payable as full and final settlement and assured that the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioning creditors will be given a copy of the communication from the respondent company showing their desire to pay 25% of the principal amount, pursuant to which all the Company Petitions were adjourned by this Court by passing the following order; “All these petitions are called out twice today. None of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioning creditors has chosen to remain present. Shri Manish Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on COMP/17/1991 JUDGMENT behalf of the respondent company has submitted that the respondent company is ready and willing to pay 25% of the principal amount due and payable as full and final settlement. He has submitted that the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioning creditors will be given a copy of the communication from the respondent company showing their desire to pay 25% of the principal amount. Let Shri Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent company supply copy of the correspondence with the respondent company to each of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective petitioning creditors by 18th September 2006. S.O. To 25th September 2006. If on that date the learned advocates appearing on behalf of petitioning creditors are absent, appropriate order, dismissing the present Company Petitions for non- prosecution, will be passed. COMP/17/1991 JUDGMENT

2. It is also required to be noted that, vide judgment and order dated 27.2.2006 in OJ Appeal No. 35 of 2002 and other cognate appeals the Division Bench admitted all these company petitions and ordered for advertisement informing the date of final hearing. However, it appears that, till date advertisements are not given in the local newspapers informing the date of Final Hearing. Thus, there is non-compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench also. To be placed in Board No.I on 25th September 2006.”

Today, When all these Company Petitions and Applications were called out in the first session, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioning creditors were absent, and therefore all the petitions were kept back. COMP/17/1991 JUDGMENT Again, all these petitions and applications were called out in the second session, and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective petitioning creditors are absent. These petitions and applications are of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. As stated above, by judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 27th February 2006 in O.J. Appeal No. 35 of 2002 and other cognate appeals the Division Bench directed admission of all the Company Petitions; that hearing be advertised; and that all the matters be decided by learned Single Judge after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Nothing is on record to show that any effort is made by any of the petitioners to see that hearing of the present petitions is advertised.